Is "High Society" the modern woman's pornography?

I thought I would pound this out here, since most of GB is likely duders and has some form of the perspective I have.

I was running on a machine at the gym the other day, and had a long hard think about this topic. I run in front of this vent, and on the ledge there is splayed a multitude of "pop culture magazines". You know, People, OK! magazine. Anything that Kim Kardashian or Brad Pitt is going to be on the cover of. We all know that only women buy these things, and some buy them obsessively.

So, I began thinking, why are they so interested in other people's lives that are so inconsequential to them? I think it comes from a woman's idea of sexual fantasy, projecting herself as living like celebrity and all the "glam" and "drama" that comes with it. Women are wired very much more complicated than we are (hey if you didn't notice, I'm a guy) sexually, and likely for good reason, considering that anthropologically a father is more likely to leave a child behind. Thus, women have to be very selective with their mates. Us dudes are wired very much for self-gratification and for rapid response to sexual urges. That's why porn is such a big industry, it takes that urge and gives us an outlet through visual stimulation (and other forms of stimulation, I'm sure you would agree). It also insures when there's an opportunity for a new member to be part of the species, there is always an urge available to make that happen

So why care? Men get off in their own way, women get off in theirs. No big deal.

Well, I view it as a problem for women to fantasize in such a way and support their urges vicariously. So much needless time and energy is devoted to following the lives of popular people. Every paltry thing is captured and publicized, much to the detriment of the people followed, and the readers of the publication. Everyone knows that these magazines negatively affect the body image of young women, but what about us men? Through their personification of these celebrities, it leaves their expectations of men unreasonably high, which screws with the selective process I mentioned earlier.

The argument can be made saying that porn does the same thing with the gender roles switched, but I think most guys would agree that they would much rather have sex with a real woman more than porn. If you've ever been in a crowded bar with a dancefloor, you also know that men will accept much lower standards in terms of women than that represented in pornography. We understand that porn is a caricature of our desires, and not real life. If you do think that sexual encounters happen willy nilly as they do in the porn world, you are going to have some real issues, dude.

So do you guys agree with me? I forsee many tl;dr's in my futue...

I project myself onto Vinny and live vicariously through him. That may make me a bad person, but there's worse people to live vicariously through. Like Kim Kardashian! (none of this is true, except the last bit)

Women like porn as well. It's societal expectations that made women "not like sex". Women like to get off just as much as guys do.

This is an interesting breakdown...I've really never thought of it this way, but it puts a lot of things into perspective. I need some time to digest this (and masturbate).

I think men are more visual, where woman are more mental, and need to get into the mood. So womans porn would be romance novels if anything. My other responce is "Idk, but I saw porn so I clicked."

People still read magazines? lol

@GreggD: Everybody wants to be Vinny. You're fine.

@GiveUpNed: I'm not denying that women get off less. I'm just saying that the method they use is much more cerebral, and usually not traditional porn. If you look at the stats for pornography websites, there's a huge male gender bias.

I find it weird in general that people will pay money to know what other 'popular' people do in their lives that isn't something significant like scientific pursuits, as it seems so stupid to me personally. Good read overall dude.

...this whole thing is weird as the majority of people who will comment and give their opinions on this thread are men. Men shouldn't try to express how women feel just like women shouldn't express how men feel. All we, as men, could do on any thing women experience is help, if they would like us to. We can't explain what they experience as we aren't women. The only comments on this thread that will count are from the female GB members.

I'm pretty sure High Societyis ACTUALLY pornography

I don't know, I'd like to think that I'm above such petty idol worship

...but how is it much different than me following Nolan North on twitter?

@JasonR86: I agree wholeheartedly. I was just looking to share my thoughts, but if there are women who can chime in, it would bring about some good points probably.

I'm pretty sure reading those magazines has absolutely nothing to do with getting off. But maybe I'm just saying that because my mom reads People...

Different strokes for different folks, dude. I don't think the popularity of People magazine and celebrities in general has anything to do with living vicariously through Kim Kardashian or anything, people just like famous people. That's why they're famous. Doesn't matter if you're a dude or a lady. Media and society tends to skew women towards People magazine and things of that nature, but I don't think it's any more sexual than a guy caring about a band they really like or something, and last I checked just as many guys probably watch Jersey Shore as girls do (just using that as an example of a reality show, and it's entirely based on my experiences in university dorms.)

I think you're probably looking into this a bit much, if you ask me.

I came in here just because pornography was in your title.

I can not express how ashamed I am with myself because I was disappointed with the amount of words in your post...

I love women who love porn.

GUYS ARE LIKE THIS, AND WOMEN ARE LIKE THIS

BIOTRUTHS IN THIS BITCH, YUP ALL WOMEN AND ONLY WOMEN BUY PEOPLE THAT'S TOTALLY ACCURATE

Well, I will start by saying that women don't jack off to Entertainment Today. That's probably the key difference, here.

I get the connection you're trying to make - that both publications are pleasurable to certain types of people and both mediums push very easy access lizard-brain happiness buttons. But the purposes of the two things are different. Ladies who read gossip magazines read them for a large variety of reasons. These women can't all be clumped into one group. Some might pick up a magazine because there is a certain amount of schadenfreude to be gained from the misery of celebrities, while others like to feel like they're in-the-know and part of a social circle. Others might pick up a magazine on the premise of finding out new fashions, but really look at ways to compare her body to the celebrity's body. I'm just covering the obvious. Anyone who reads or watches porn pretty much just has one goal in mind.

This is also implying, perhaps not purposefully, that women don't read or watch porn and that porn is solely a dude thing. I would not be at all surprised if some statistic said more men than women dabbled in it, but sex is universal and its expression varies widely. Men have Playboy models and wacky videos while women have bodice-ripping novels and yaoi type art. Plenty of people cross those invisible territorial lines and there's also plenty of middle ground. Like, you know... fan fiction. But I won't go there.

@Jerr said:

Well, I view it as a problem for women to fantasize in such a way and support their urges vicariously. So much needless time and energy is devoted to following the lives of popular people. Every paltry thing is captured and publicized, much to the detriment of the people followed, and the readers of the publication. Everyone knows that these magazines negatively affect the body image of young women, but what about us men? Through their personification of these celebrities, it leaves their expectations of men unreasonably high, which screws with the selective process I mentioned earlier.

The argument can be made saying that porn does the same thing with the gender roles switched, but I think most guys would agree that they would much rather have sex with a real woman more than porn. If you've ever been in a crowded bar with a dancefloor, you also know that men will accept much lower standards in terms of women than that represented in pornography. We understand that porn is a caricature of our desires, and not real life. If you do think that sexual encounters happen willy nilly as they do in the porn world, you are going to have some real issues, dude.

Emphasis mine. This, I just... don't get. I'm sure these publications create high expectations in some women, but, are you really going after the type of woman who is absolutely obsessed with celebrities? To the point where if she decides that if you don't look enough like Brad Pitt, that she's not going to date you? And even if it does instill in a woman high expectations - so what? Why is that bad for her? Can't she be allowed to be picky? I'm sorry it might lower your chances, but, oh well. You win some, you lose some. That's life. If you want to increase your chances of dating someone awesome, get healthy, get a fun hobby, get a steady job, be confident in who you are, put yourself out there, and just be a decent, kind-hearted person. That's all there is too it, really.

The real problem with this magazine garbage is not that they might lower the chances of some dudes in the dating world, but that they help destroy the self-confidence of many, many, many young girls and grown women. These magazines, along with certain television shows, commercials, movies, comic books, billboards, etc, were part of the reason why every day during lunch hour in my high school, girls were forming lines that stretched outside of the bathroom to throw up their lunches, while simultaneously chit-chatting about denying their dinners when they got home because they were too fat and needed to diet. It's why I exercised off twice the amount of calories I took in every day all throughout my teenage years - because I thought this was okay and the norm and totally not a disease. It's why my ballet mentor was told that, while she was a brilliant dancer, she was just too fat when she auditioned for a New York professional troupe - even though she was about 90lbs. It's the reason why many of my college peers have already fucking resorted to botox.

This is the problem. This is what you should be upset about.

I know you don't mean any offense (nor do I). I know this was just a silly post. But I hope I at least made sense.

@Jerr said:

Well, I view it as a problem for women to fantasize in such a way and support their urges vicariously. So much needless time and energy is devoted to following the lives of popular people. Every paltry thing is captured and publicized, much to the detriment of the people followed, and the readers of the publication. Everyone knows that these magazines negatively affect the body image of young women, but what about us men? Through their personification of these celebrities, it leaves their expectations of men unreasonably high, which screws with the selective process I mentioned earlier.

All points go both ways within each gender, as you later stated. Vicarious living is an unfortunate cornerstone of the popular culture supported by magazines like People, but not gender specific. I think it has less to do with women and more to do with American culture as a whole.Women likely become more engrossed in the specific brand of celebrity-worship supported in celebrity-watch magazines, but there are equally destructive or frivolous outlets in popular culture for men.

@pixieface said:

Well, I will start by saying that women don't jack off to Entertainment Today.

I do...(im a dude)...(just kidding)...(to the jack off part not the dude part)

@Dagbiker said:

I think men are more visual, where woman are more mental, and need to get into the mood. So womans porn would be romance novels if anything. My other responce is "Idk, but I saw porn so I clicked."

This. Women are far more likely to get turned on by a guy they find impressive than simply visually attractive, hence any dog faced musical star, actor, or wealthy man.

Whoa there Freud. Not everything is about sex. I don't follow how you're linking your salient observation with pornography. Sure, women may enjoy those types of magazines for the idyllic lifestyles presented, but I don't see how it could be seen as sexual fantasy as opposed to just plain fantasy. If that was the case, they'd be getting all hot and bothered every time they spied a tabloid at the checkout.

No woman is getting physically turned on when they hear the words "stable job" and "wants kids", or other such fluff. That sort of thing flips a far more intellectual switch, one that is situated so far away from the button labelled "get down and dirty" that they cannot be tripped at the same time. Pornography caters squarely to the latter, and still remains the only alternative for such carnal desires besides the real thing. As for why women seem to be less sexually... Flammable as men, that is an area I dare not tread, for I am firmly a man, and only have one half of the story. Maybe some day the sexes will manage to collaborate and suss out many of life's greatest questions such as this one, but that day is not today.

@Dagbiker said:

I think men are more visual, where woman are more mental, and need to get into the mood. So womans porn would be romance novels if anything. My other responce is "Idk, but I saw porn so I clicked."

This. Women are far more likely to get turned on by a guy they find impressive than simply visually attractive, hence any dog faced musical star, actor, or wealthy man.

@pixieface: I agree with you on most of your points, actually. Perhaps it's important to clarify that I don't disapprove of the publications inherently, but I do believe that the intense look into the minute details of the lives of others is a direct ploy towards exciting that vicarious urge in women. Some may glean some enjoyment from their misfortunes, but if I were to guess the popularity of such a concept, I would speculate the former. I suppose I'm somewhat of a Freudian in that respect; I think most things that are marketed to us have to do with our roles as men or women in society. As for the high expectations on men, I'm not saying that it leaves us hopeless, but it's an artificial inflation of the persona of a man. I don't want to be labeled as a particular kind of person based on a popular figure. I agree that what you spoke of in the latter half of your post is a larger issue though probably; I was just expressing my thoughts.

@Trav: Care to share some examples?

@DoctorWelch: ... Okay!

Hm. I definitely meant Entertainment Weekly, instead of Today. Although, come to think, US Weekly would probably be more suitable magazine to the topic at hand.

Shows how much I know about gossip mags.

@Akrid: Yes, to everything you just said. Also, "sexually flammable" is such a great phrase that I'm going to have to steal it and use it in the future.

@benjaebe: I don't think people "just like" famous people. There's usually a more complicated explanation behind most of our behaviours. That's why sociology exists.

Entertainment Weekly is actually about movies, music, and TV, not celebrities personal lives. Just sayin'...........................

@Akrid said:

Whoa there Freud. Not everything is about sex. I don't follow how you're linking your salient observation with pornography. Sure, women may enjoy those types of magazines for the idyllic lifestyles presented, but I don't see how it could be seen as sexual fantasy as opposed to just plain fantasy. If that was the case, they'd be getting all hot and bothered every time they spied a tabloid at the checkout.

You're saying sex symbols don't exist? The millions of women who cried when Marilyn Monroe died would probably disagree. And it wasn't because of her acting career.

My ex-fiancee's ultimate dream fantasy was to be a red carpet wife. One of those women married to a rich movie celeb and able to walk down the red carpet into some big premier. Now you know why she's an EX. Nipped that shit in the bud before that vampire could suck my bank account dry.

@Jerr said:

So, I began thinking, why are they so interested in other people's lives that are so inconsequential to them?

Let me take that in a different direction than you did. People magazine and those types of magazines are just a replacement for when the royal families of various countries used to matter a whole lot more. They never really DID anything once their countries became democracies (or what have you), so they existed purely for public display. But they're less and less relevant each year, so celebrities have largely replaced them, since they fill a similar role.

Both celebrities and royals are groups of prominent people and personalities that it's very easy to get some info on if you try even a little bit. For whatever reasons, biological or cultural, women seem to have the greater tendency to want to know about and discuss the social lives of others. I wouldn't tie it to sexual gratification, any more than I would think that men like sports and like being competitive because it gives us huge boners. There could have been evolutionary/societal advantages for the traits in men and women that weren't related to sexual arousal.

The convenience with celebrities and royals is that even if two particular women don't share many acquaintances, or they do but a bunch of them are within earshot and they aren't able to discuss those people, they can always have common ground, a nearly ubiquitous set of people whose lives they can discuss.

Dude, dudes have tried understanding women before, they'll try understanding them in the future. But neither you nor I will ever find what makes them tick.

Women can have sexual fantasies and be horny as well.   
 
Blagh Im trying to write the next part of this not to sound like a jerk but if you get to know a girl really well, theyll usually tell you about their sexual fantasies, desires, etc.  I know it can be a bit surprising at first considering girls arent open about this stuff as much as guys are

Entertainment Weekly? Pornography? Pshhaw.

Newsweek is the magazine that really gets me going. Editorializing major news stories from around the world. Aw yeah. Flipping through the pages late at night, imagining Paul Krugman's smooth voice narrating every line about the latest campaign issues. The way they present facts in a slow, drawn-out manner interspersed with personal opinion to give the news more texture and impact. Now that's the stuff.

Conclusion: Newsweek is pornography.

@BisonHero: I agree, but there was still an attraction to power. Power is the greatest aphrodisiac. And we do get our competitive edge for a evolutionary, sexual reason: Alpha male gets the lady.

@TruthTellah: Thanks for pointing out my error in a very funny, if not sickenly sarcastic way. Much appreciated.

@Jerr said:

@pixieface: I agree with you on most of your points, actually. Perhaps it's important to clarify that I don't disapprove of the publications inherently, but I do believe that the intense look into the minute details of the lives of others is a direct ploy towards exciting that vicarious urge in women. Some may glean some enjoyment from their misfortunes, but if I were to guess the popularity of such a concept, I would speculate the former.

Women read them for both reasons, and more than just those two. My mom, for example, doesn't buy gossip magazines but she'll always flip through them in store lines and in the doctor's offices just to make fun of the people in them to feel superior. I've done the same thing. It doesn't feel especially great to admit, but we've probably all done something like that in some form or another.

As for the high expectations on men, I'm not saying that it leaves us hopeless, but it's an artificial inflation of the persona of a man. I don't want to be labeled as a particular kind of person based on a popular figure. I agree that what you spoke of in the latter half of your post is a larger issue though probably; I was just expressing my thoughts.

While I clearly don't have any facts to back me up and I don't know who you hang out with, I can say with reasonable certainty that you probably won't be judged based on a popular figure. I'm not saying you won't be judged, period, because everyone gets judged. It would happen without the aid of mass-produced celebrity worshiping diarrhea. But a girl is not likely to judge you on how much you look like Johnny Depp. A girl who is worth your while is more likely judge you on your personality and achievements instead. And any girl who does, in fact, judge you based on some celebrity standard is frankly not worth your time. You deserve better.

The issue I spoke of is indeed a large issue. It's everywhere and magazines are definitely included. They don't have to be read to have an effect. Just seeing these beautiful air-brushed women on magazines and shopping catalogs while I stand in line at my grocery store still feels pretty damn shitty. It sends a quiet, yet sinister message. This is clearly what men want because it is advertised everywhere. If you are not like this shining example of a celebrity, if you are not skinny enough, if your face is not youthful enough, if your hair is not perfectly styled, no man will want you. You are worthless. Look better or you amount to nothing.

I know, logically, that the men I am attracted to won't really give a damn if I don't live up to Photoshopped standards, because those who would find that important are assholes. I know, rationally, that these celebrities don't look this way in real life, and in actuality, would probably look like just another person if the cosmetics and make-up professionals were taken away.

But simply telling myself that I have no reason to feel bad when I look at these pictures does not make the bad feelings go away, in much the same way that telling a clinically depressed person to "look on the bright side" doesn't really work.

This whole issue is why beauty pageants baffle me. Like that Toddlers and Tiaras show? Oh my god, what the hell. This is like middle ages stuff. I can't believe it still gets practiced today.

@PeasantAbuse: I don't know shit about no shit!

@TruthTellah:

AW YEAH

@pixieface said:

@Jerr said:

@pixieface: I agree with you on most of your points, actually. Perhaps it's important to clarify that I don't disapprove of the publications inherently, but I do believe that the intense look into the minute details of the lives of others is a direct ploy towards exciting that vicarious urge in women. Some may glean some enjoyment from their misfortunes, but if I were to guess the popularity of such a concept, I would speculate the former.

Women read them for both reasons, and more than just those two. My mom, for example, doesn't buy gossip magazines but she'll always flip through them in store lines and in the doctor's offices just to make fun of the people in them to feel superior. I've done the same thing. It doesn't feel especially great to admit, but we've probably all done something like that in some form or another.

As for the high expectations on men, I'm not saying that it leaves us hopeless, but it's an artificial inflation of the persona of a man. I don't want to be labeled as a particular kind of person based on a popular figure. I agree that what you spoke of in the latter half of your post is a larger issue though probably; I was just expressing my thoughts.

While I clearly don't have any facts to back me up and I don't know who you hang out with, I can say with reasonable certainty that you probably won't be judged based on a popular figure. I'm not saying you won't be judged, period. Everyone gets judged and it would happen without the aid of mass-produced celebrity worshiping diarrhea. But a girl is not likely to judge you on how much you look like Johnny Depp. A girl who is worth your while is more likely judge you on your personality and achievements instead.

Like I've said before, I'm just sharing my thoughts in general. This isn't some elaborate personal story about my problems with women. The things that you said about judgement go without saying for me, but that's because I try to connect with people who would judge me based on personality and achievements. But, much of society is terribly vain and not so introspective as you or I. Thus, the success of the publications discussed herein this topic.

@GiveUpNed said:

Women like porn as well. It's societal expectations that made women "not like sex". Women like to get off just as much as guys do.

wait, women who like sex are WHORES! Men who like sex are NORMAL... this seems right to me

/sarcasm

@Jerr said:

@BisonHero: I agree, but there was still an attraction to power. Power is the greatest aphrodisiac. And we do get our competitive edge for a evolutionary, sexual reason: Alpha male gets the lady.

Sure, but I was disagreeing with the topic title: I don't think it's pornography. Unlike pornography, when males get competitive with each other, we aren't getting sexually aroused. When females socialize and gossip about prominent public figures, male and female, they aren't getting sexually aroused.

That could have had evolutionary advantages in helping preserve the pack/herd/tribe, in the sense that if females can bond over something as simple as "we both know a person, let's talk about them", that could be one more thing to help the tribe stick together, thus making them a larger tribe with a better chance of survival. There are evolutionary pressures that don't directly relate to procreation and mate selection.

I don't know for certain which of us is right regarding your high society/People Magazine topic, but I just wanted to point out that it could go several ways.

@BisonHero said:

@Jerr said:

@BisonHero: I agree, but there was still an attraction to power. Power is the greatest aphrodisiac. And we do get our competitive edge for a evolutionary, sexual reason: Alpha male gets the lady.

Sure, but I was disagreeing with the topic title: I don't think it's pornography. Unlike pornography, when males get competitive with each other, we aren't getting sexually aroused. When females socialize and gossip about prominent public figures, male and female, they aren't getting sexually aroused.

That could have had evolutionary advantages in helping preserve the pack/herd/tribe, in the sense that if females can bond over something as simple as "we both know a person, let's talk about them", that could be one more thing to help the tribe stick together, thus making them a larger tribe with a better chance of survival. There are evolutionary pressures that don't directly relate to procreation and mate selection.

I don't know for certain which of us is right regarding your high society/People Magazine topic, but I just wanted to point out that it could go several ways.

Interesting perspective and one I hadn't considered. I guess the topic title is ironically sensationalistic, but it kind of sums up my overall thoughts on the matter, even if the discussion is a bit more complex. Your observation on female bonding is an excellent one, but I don't think it represents the whole of why women are interested in pop figures.

I came in here just because pornography was in your title.

I can not express how ashamed I am with myself because I was disappointed with the amount of words in your post...

GUYS ARE LIKE THIS, AND WOMEN ARE LIKE THIS

BIOTRUTHS IN THIS BITCH, YUP ALL WOMEN AND ONLY WOMEN BUY PEOPLE THAT'S TOTALLY ACCURATE

From the title I thought you were referring to High Society Magazine, one of the more graphic nudie mags in the US.

@Jerr : Any time, Jerr. :)

@pixieface Aw yeah, that's the stuff. You ain't getting that anywhere else.

@DarkHeroZark said:

I'm pretty sure High Societyis ACTUALLY pornography

Well then, it's settled.

@GiveUpNed said:

Women like porn as well. It's societal expectations that made women "not like sex". Women like to get off just as much as guys do.

Science disagrees. The OP pretty much explained why this is not the case. Men gravitating more towards porn than women is not a societal construct, it's rooted in our physiology and evolution:

If men spread their seed in a woman of poor genes, they can impregnate 2 new women the next day. Banging often and without many restrictions is for men an evolutionary advantage, as there is virtually no physical consequence for them. Thus, men have higher libidos, and are attracted to porn because it stimulates the sex parts of the brain.

Women are different. If they procreate with a man they are dissatisfied with, they do not get another shot for 9 months. This has made having a lower libido and being more selective an evolutionary advantage for women, as the consequence of sex is greater.

@Harkat said:

@GiveUpNed said:

Women like porn as well. It's societal expectations that made women "not like sex". Women like to get off just as much as guys do.

Science disagrees.

Ok... Where are the scientific journals proving your argument?

@GiveUpNed: My scientific evidence is that the porn that is out there is for a male audience, be it them wanting straight/gay or whatever 'fetish' it is male oriented for a reason

@GiveUpNed said:

Women like porn as well. It's societal expectations that made women "not like sex". Women like to get off just as much as guys do.

This. Until our species finally gets it in their heads that we are not what we are based on biological endowment, women are going to be the "weird, picky" creatures we males know them as. Since parents think it's unnatural for women to be otherwise, women gotta be what or contemporary society thinks is natural and biological.

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

@GiveUpNed said:

Women like porn as well. It's societal expectations that made women "not like sex". Women like to get off just as much as guys do.

This. Until our species finally gets it in their heads that we are not what we are based on biological endowment, women are going to be the "weird, picky" creatures we males know them as. Since parents think it's unnatural for women to be otherwise, women gotta be what or contemporary society thinks is natural and biological.

Where is the evidence that we are not what we are based on biological endowment? Doesn't evolution say otherwise?

@Jerr: @pixieface:

I'll leave this right here... http://www.wealthymen.com/